exactly my point.
There are two things one can do:
1) avoid trials at all costs
2) prepare for martyrdom or poverty, or both when one is getting sued by the government which has an unlimited resources and defendant has to spend millions sometimes and the win in court has a sizable price tag.

Thanks to the cheap lesson by Steve Cohen (sex.com) I always stuck to the 1st option.

Yes, but again, you are making a major mistake here. You are assuming that YOUR region has anything to do with it - it does not. The registration agreement that Slick entered into is executed in the state of Louisianna,

You only have to go as far as the sex.com saga to realize that domains are not property in and of themselves, just something you are granted the rights to use in return for a yearly fee (a leasehold).

The registrar is much more like a landlord than a real estate agent, they don't sell and walk away, they lease, collect the rent, and make the sure everything works (and that things point to the domain servers we provide, etc). Both sides have some rights, both sides have obligations, and as a result both sides have the obligation to meet those rights.

I would personally prefer option 1, even if you win in court, your life could be permanently altered as you've said. It costs money to win, sometimes more money then you're entitled to in the end. I guess it boils down to, freedom ain't cheap.

Actually, you're assuming that I was assuming that it was MY region that mattered. :pimp

If they are like a landlord however, there are certain limitations placed on both parties, some say parties have overstepped, some say they have not. I'm merely trying to find out how it impacts my business with my registrar so I can continue or modify how I do business.

Renting is completely different and not compatible at all, for example you can not sell a rental contract but you can sell a domain name, you can't sell something that is not your property.

I know DN are not based in California, and I can't really bother lokking into laws regarding how things work in Atlanta or where ever they're based.
But the following sounds about right:

Intresting,i was just read one old tutorial on gfy how directnic is better of other registars like godaddy and other cheap registers,and now this happen.

But the neighborhood association, which has no ownership rights, can kick you out for that.

You gave them the right when you purchased the house and signed the neighborhood association agreement (which if you didn't do you would not have been able to buy the house - whch is why a big buying point on my house was no neighborhood association)

Here's the thing. In order to remove someone from an apartment, there is a process, spelled out in law and in the rental agreement. In domains, there is a process... spelled out mostly in the rental agreement, because outside of sex.com and a few others, there is little beyond straight contract law supporting this stuff.

The landlord needs to do what the landlord needs to do. He doesn't say "well, maybe the electric company guy will say something" or "maybe the guy next door will do something", he takes action. He doesn't pass the buck. Passing the buck is one of the ways you end up with drug infested slums... but that is for another discussion.

Which wire?

But many rental contracts you can sublet :thumbsup

yes, and to extend the same logic,
winning popularity contest on GFY, as I believe Slick has done, doesn't prevent one from the legal actions in real life and the outcome of those actions might be 180 degrees different than the populace of GFY has predicted.

I'm sure the smart ones will learn the lesson for the future and cheap,
while those who won't become the martyrs we'll be remembering in our yearly prayers.

Can anybody post the link on GFY where everybody praise all "fallen heros"?
I'd like to read it.

There have been people who've lost their homes due to the liens being more than the house is worth. That's pretty much "removal of property" to me.

No, they can't... But they can sue to enforce regulations. Meanwhile, unless an injunction is obtained, the curtains stays up.

I'll have to take your word for it, I've never lived in a house with a neighborhood association agreement, I've only heard of that for townhouses and condos in Canada.

Slicks real world practical experience will indeed be much different then his GFY fame.

Again, liens are obtained by court orders ( unless you are the actual government for what is about my province ) and can be fought and overturn.
Meanwhile, the person can still live in the premises ....

You do have a hardon for arguing down to the split hairs, I'll give you that.

There have also been cases where the HOA has gone and mowed unslightly grass, repainted a house, etc. and charged the homeowner for doing so. Homeowner won't pay - lien on property.

Right now there's a $50K lien on a guy in my subdivision because he decided to clear cut his back yard.

And BTW, many have rules for what you put on your windows too. I lived in one neighborhood where every window seen from the street had to have a white backing. And yes, they could fine you until you removed it and if you wanted to play hardball, the fine could be more than your house was worth.

A TOS can and has been held up in courts - it's been that way for decades, here in GA.

Sure, they can live there. But what do you do when you go to sell your house that's worth $100K and has $150K worth of liens on it??

So far, HOA liens in GA have been VERY strong. I've seen very few, if any cases, where they've been overturned.

let's look at the positve side:

Hey, this builds charecter.

Brad Shaw lost $25,000 to Dave Purehardcore, brought his apologies to him on all adult boards and...
look at him now
;)

fuck me - i have 6 pages of bitching to read since I last read this thread, can someone summarise if for me please?

wow, you guys are still arguing over the same bullshit opinions.

Peaches your beating a dead horse, look at these replies here.

it is funny to watch though, isn't it

I gave up on the arguing part a while ago, I am just reading now....and boy is it a fun read, a little monotonous, but fun

I have np problem with that . As a past Condo association president, I did put liens on condos ( thru the courts ) ang got it sold by sheriff ( starting price is 25% of evaluation- no reserve ). THe bank contested the liens, because they became suddemly in second position on their loan...

To summarize, all that was done legally in court.

DN should have done that, and supply court papers to Slick :2 cents:

ok, I;'ll try..

you an idiot!

no, it';s you who is an idiot!

this would cover at least 4 pages you mised.

No, I have a hardon against misinformation and mistaken assumptions. Everyone in this has assumed that Directnic was trying to do a 2257 inspection (they were not, from everything I have seen... only trying to enforce the terms agreed to into their registration agreement), and just about everyone thinks they OWN a domain. They own the rights to use a domain, an ongoing agreement, with the contractual rights to reassignment (ie, selling the rights) but they don't actually own the domain.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but it is the difference between a girl talking about getting pregnant and actually having twins.

Well, one thing is for sure: you WERE trading with sites that had CP. You had no 2257 links what so ever and a lot of your thumbs looked like CP.

If you play with fire you've got to be able to handle the heat.

:2 cents:

Man I have to give you credit... you would argue your way out of a paper bag, no matter if you are wrong or right!

lol - right great ok :1orglaugh

i think we all just better wait till slick comes back and tells us what his lawyer has said etc.

This is a huge grey area. and one that will unravel in time.

Wrong, there were links to 2257 statements on every single gallery linked from Slick's sites.

But thanks for your page 11 two cents. :D

I agree with you that we do not know the complete story and there is plenty group think floating around based on the facts known so far - that's not unusual.

Slick's lawyers will work on his case and as part of that, presumably establish the details of any alleged criminal offenses which may be known by DirectNic - or otherwise. Legal negotiations/strategy is not our biz.

No doubts DirectNic will eventually make a diplomatic statement justifying every action they have taken. That also is normal - do you expect them to admit any liability?

The issue of Slick and that of the actions of DirectNIC are separate (tho combined in this scenario). One is about possible CP issues, the other is about the actions of a domain registrar. Slick's issue will probably be ongoing for some time.

On the DirectNic side, they have already stated their position by email and acted upon it and it's not in doubt. The conduct of their staff is below the level of a swamp when accusing clients who wish to remove domains that they "support child pornography". The conduct of their General Counsel concerning clients who wish to remove domains, is pathetic, but hardly a surprise.

DirectNic have elected to be protectors of public morals with admirable and righteous aims of stopping child pornography. That is their choice - in which case they need to start the DirecticNiC Center For Exploited Children and forget reporting offenses to law enforcement and just elect to act as LE. I strongly suggest that 50% of all DirectNic revenue be donated to such wonderful causes and DN status revert to a charity.

Whatever DirectNic say or don't say, is now irrelevant. They have made their bed - it's time to sleep in it. Webmasters pay for domains from registrars - they don't pay to listen to the opinion of the registrars. If there is an problem concerning domain content - anyone is free to report that issue to the relevant authority. DirectNic failed to do so.

Bottom line - who needs a registrar where their staff suggest people support child porn, they can't give contact point of responsible officers and their General Counsel behaves like an idiot? Nobody - only a fool. There is no reason to consider placing domains in the hands of idiots with an opinion - they can't be trusted.

i thought that one of his pages had some links then said we will update this 2257 page soon and then it said last updated may the 4th.


?

Dude, was he hosting porn images or not?

If he hosts porn images he should have 2257 info ON HIS SITE.

And HE WAS linking to sites with CP.

As simple as that.

Webby, all I can say is this: I wish you would apply the same standards to Slick as you do to Directnic. He too made his bed, and he has to lay in it.

Your entire accusations against Directnic are based on (a) the charges of Slick, status questionable, and (b) an email that was never copied, lost in an apparent disk crash.

I am thinking that there is way more to know, and your jump to a conclusion on Directnic (or on Slick) is way early in the game.

"dude", I'm not going to start the entire argument over with you. Every single point you're raising has already been addressed in these threads ad nauseum. In light of that your johnny-cum-lamely comments are about as useful as tits on a towtruck.

I can't apply the same standard to Slick - I don't know the details about any alleged offenses - and neither do you. It's an ongoing issue.

DirectNic is not in doubt - that facts are known and they have acted on their "opinion". I contacted DN myself to establish some elements - their response was abysmal, (read DUMBO) and certainly not a company I'd trust with domains.

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but you could also view it this way:

Directnic, acting in their own best interest after allegedly recieving a complaint, has decided to withhold service on one of their customers, which they have every right to do so under their terms of service agreement. No moral crusade, no self-riteous arm of the law for the entire industry, just a company not wanting to knowingly enable anyone to publish "questionable" materials until they can look into it and determine just how questionable those materials are.

They certainly do reserve that right in their TOS, as does the TOS/AUP of virtually every other registrar and adult hosting provider I've looked at lately, and I've looked at several believe me.

I can't say I much care for the way they shut him down though and are holding his domains hostage. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out and what Slick's lawyer will come up with. There's a solution in all this somewhere, glad I'm not the one having to sift through all the facets to make a judgement on it though. I've got a headache already from it.

Always the idiot eh Tranza?

"nice to see where you stand" --- you are being a tool right there, did you know that?

Admit you haven't read any posts here, nor have you obviously read any of mine yet you're going to sit behind your keyboard and cock off?

Why can guys like you never ever seem to just get a clue?

Here, I'll provide one for you --- If you're too busy and important to actually read the thread, why not keep your lameass comments to yourself?

Lol, sorry if I don't live on the boards 24/7. Some of us actually work hard and make money from porn.

I'll never be pro-CP. He linked to sites with CP pictures, he never denied it. His replies were like: "I'm sorry for not being able to check hundreds of trades every single day to see if they had CP". And that's total bullshit when most of the sites he linked had CP and his own pictures played with the idea of CP.

But it's nice to see where you stand.